/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15911054]

>btfo's nonfictionfags

[Anonymous No.15911083]

>>15911054
Sounds like a fucking faggot.

[Anonymous No.15911105]

>>15911083
get ready to suck some cock, ubersoyboy

[Anonymous No.15911125]

>>15911054
Took a lot of words for him to tell his readers he's a cuck faggot.

[Anonymous No.15911138]

>>15911054
>muh hierarchies
I will never understand complaints about hierarchy. I just doesn’t make sense

[Anonymous No.15911156]

>>15911054
>2nd paragraph
wtf I love tolkein now

[Anonymous No.15911206]

>>15911054
>Cod wagnerian pompousity
>soldierly cameraderie
>belief in absolute morality

The opposite of these are better?
>Stark noir edge realism
>solitary s0 y apathy and misanthropy
>doubt of all things, even doubt
That's any number of angry young man's debut novel.
It's a change of pace from Tolkien, but it isnt better or healthier.

[Anonymous No.15911244]

>>15911054
>challenge
>alienate
>subvert
>undermine

[Anonymous No.15911329]

ready to ride my Avank, non-fiction boi?

[Anonymous No.15911378]

>>15911329
What race is he?

[Anonymous No.15911397]

Isn't Tolkien one of the few accepted fantasy writers that is considered "literary?"

Why would they be refering to him?

[Anonymous No.15911536]

>nooooo you can't have clear cut good and evil much gray zones
I don't have sojaks or I would post one.

[Anonymous No.15911555]

>>15911397
>did you just say the heckin jrr tolkien!?

[Anonymous No.15911615]

>>15911329
wtf why does this dude shave his head? Judging by this picture he'd have a full head of hair if he let it grow out fully. Why would anyone go chromedome unless they were forced to by a cruel fate

[Anonymous No.15911786]

why dis nigga look like pic related?

[Anonymous No.15912101]

Tried twice to complete Perdido Street Station and failed.
>wow what if bugs lived like people and could talk
>wow what if a birdman could be like a human with wings
>wow what if there were supernatural horrors lurking beneath the liminal planes of my constructed universe?
>checkmate fascists

[Anonymous No.15912112]

>>15911054
Literally who

[Anonymous No.15912133]

>>15912112
>His parents separated soon after his birth, and he has said that he "never really knew" his father.[5] They chose his first name, China, from a dictionary, looking for a beautiful name

[Anonymous No.15912166]

>>15912133
That's a long name.

[Anonymous No.15912196]

>>15911054
>im mad that the guy who wrote constructively is remembered more than people who wrote destructively, since i want to write destructively and be remembered

cope

[Anonymous No.15912204]

>>15911054
> Bulgakov
> magical realism is fantasy

[Anonymous No.15912223]

>>15911786
can somebody please explain to me how these people always come to the decision to wear the same type of rectangular glasses? I don't understand the reasoning behind it, does the global society of optometrists just secretly decide to fuck with nerdy kids by going hell yeah buddy those look super cool, there you go, now you look like you can win arguments with logic and reason. Do the glasses make the nerd or does the nerd attract the glasses?

[Anonymous No.15912241]

>>15912223
I wear glasses like these but its because I have an egghead and the glasses take away from that aspect.

[Anonymous No.15912244]

Mieville is an interesting case study: how can someone so based in his opinions be so lacking in literary talent? Someone so imaginative, so well-read, so intellectually honest? Why does he fail to write even the tiniest narrative well? The simplest character?

>>15911156
Based redditor

>>15911206
>I can only think in false dichotomies
Guess how I know you are a mutt

>>15911397
>Isn't Tolkien one of the few accepted fantasy writers that is considered "literary?"
What the fuck, no. Go to the lit departement of any top university, no one likes him. He is only considered "literary" by shallow consumerists who couldn't perceive literary depth if it was staring them right in the face.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.15912256]

Yeah, he’s talking about cliches you often find in genre fiction. /lit/ is generally against that sort of thing.
This thread full of sffg poltards? There’s a lot to love about Tolkien, but a lot of old stuffiness too. You can write something fresh in the genre, take even the highly valued “comfiness” with you. Invent. Grow. You can still revisit the old sacred cow

>>15912204
Read the whole sentence.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.15912273]

>>15912244
>Mieville is an interesting case study: how can someone so based in his opinions be so lacking in literary talent? Someone so imaginative, so well-read, so intellectually honest? Why does he fail to write even the tiniest narrative well? The simplest character?
I haven’t read him yet. I hear a few kind words about this or that. Where does he fail/need work?

[Anonymous No.15912280]

>>15912101
I finished it, the rest of the book isn't much better. It felt less like a fantasy novel and more like the outline for a DnD campaign setting created by the president of some college's marxist book club. There's no plot, just a lot of "oooh lookit this, now lookit this, oooh isn't that COOL?"

[Anonymous No.15912355]

>>15912273
>>15912256
>LARPing as buttercunt
>shitting on /sffg/
What's your problem?

[Anonymous No.15912368]

>>15912223
wire-frame glasses look pretty shitty

[Anonymous No.15912403]

>>15912280
He said somewhere that his universe uses a rule system like RPGs, though he hasn't played RPGs since he was a kid.
>Probably one of the most enduring influences on me was a childhood playing RPGs: Dungeons and Dragons [D&D] and others. I’ve not played for sixteen years and have absolutely no intention of starting again, but I still buy and read the manuals occasionally. There were two things about them that particularly influenced me. One was the mania for cataloguing the fantastic: if you play them for any length of time, you get to know pretty much all the mythological beasts of all pantheons out there, along with a fair bit of the theology. I still love all that—I collect fantastic bestiaries, and one of the main spurs to write a secondary-world fantasy was to invent a bunch of monsters, half of which I’m sure I’ll never be able to fit into any books.
https://www.depauw.edu/sfs/interviews/mievilleinterview.htm

[Anonymous No.15912474]

>>15911138
Hierarchies imply that some people are worse at something than others. Emasculated or oversocialized men feel intense and deep shame when they acknowledge, out loud or internally, that someone is less skilled than another because in an industrialized materialist economy where people have been socialized to identify skill with value, your lack of ability means you must be a morally worse person. When the differential in ability is incredibly obvious, they mask this with fake-humble platitudes like "Everyone is good at something" or "Yeah Joe is better at A,B,...,Y but James is better at Z". Rather than say "Yeah Joe is better at most things than James, so what? I still like them both.", they gloss over the differences in ability to preserve the semblance of equality. Therefore, when Tolkein almost outright says "It's better to have a king, who is superior in all abilities, guide men and provide them council and security", this is horrifying not because it's "wrong" to argue against democracy (weak men don't actually care about democracy), it's wrong because it implies that there's one man who's better than all other men.

[Anonymous No.15912573]

>>15911054
The only thing he's right about is that it's impossible to not either emulate Tolkien or consciously subvert him in the genre of fantasy. Trying to assume Tolkien's world and its truths map directly onto ours is childish, especially when you take away something as dumb as Tolkien loving war as a boys' adventure.
I know nothing about his writing, so maybe he actually is out there making quality shit, but sullying the names of authors like Bulgakov and Schulz just to elevate today's absolute toilet paper fantasy tells me he probably isn't.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15912631]

>>15912355
It was me. Not trying to shit on sffg either. I wouldn’t’ve guessed any of them were poltards
Just wondering what’s up with this thread

[Anonymous No.15912642]

>>15912474
>Hierarchies imply that some people are worse at something than others
But that's factually correct and impossible to disprove

[Anonymous No.15912652]

>>15911105

[Anonymous No.15912654]

>>15912642
People these days are allergic to the truth

[Anonymous No.15912675]

>>15912642
/thread

[Anonymous No.15912683]

>>15912474
Nice strawman, but nobody believes this. I haven't met anyone that's an egalitarian that would say everybody is equal or everybody is good at something. Clearly, some people are retarded.
Rather, the point is that you should treat all people as intrinsically valuable because they're ensouled by God and you have no right to judge anybody.
The term "hierarchy" implies injustice from the beginning. If you're the best at making shoes, you weren't born into it most likely. But hierarchies are there exactly to protect against the very idea of a meritocracy. Even if you make worse shoes than your dad and you're a complete fuck-up in every way, Bob can't take your job and do better because pop is kept in perpetuity at a lower level of society while you own the shoe shop by rights you were granted at birth.
I'm not even against hierarchies per se, but you're making such a ridiculous strawman that it's hard not to call it out on how blatantly stupid it is. Working from the worst interpretation of an enemy's arguments is the most intellectually dishonest way to operate.

[Anonymous No.15912708]

>strawman
>ad hominem
>"bro do you have any data to back that up?"

[Anonymous No.15912759]

>>15912273
Well he creates immensely interesting concepts which pack a strong literary punch.
He then assembles a DnD party and sends them on a generic, forced quest thus completely ruining the novel. His books would be much, much better if he just literally didn't write a plot. Those narratives are formulaic and pointless.

>>15912474
After typing this I understood that I am retarded and dyslexic but I am posting this anyway because it is relevant.

>it's wrong because it implies that there's one man who's better than all other men
But that is very possibly true, especially for specific tasks. The problem is the hereditary part of this, not the centralized government part, as you imply (which comes with all sorts of practical benefits, which you would conveniently brush over because your argument is purely theoretical and assumes that society's structure reflects and should reflect the capabilities of men).

>your lack of ability means you must be a morally worse person
You are making a linguistic error here. Such perception (which I believe to be untrue and a strawman from your part but that is not the point) is not equivalent to the conceptual structure of society you are arguing about, meaning you can't just switch your argument from a utopian examination of what world should be to a completely as-is observation.
You also completely miss the point by equating social standing/political hierarchy with the treatement of people as deserving different levels of rights/respect. This is untrue. Hierarchy is usually understood as a system for structuring resource production and distribution via a certain command chain.

>>15912683
>The term "hierarchy" implies injustice from the beginning
>But hierarchies are there exactly to protect against the very idea of a meritocracy
Wrong, wrong, super wrong. You lack even the basic understanding of political theory and it's history. That is not what the word means. It takes 20 seconds to conceive of a regime which is directly opposite to what you are saying, and that, in fact, has been done in the literal first work of political philosophy in human history.

>>15912708
this is your brain on 4chan memes

[Anonymous No.15912790]

We are all living in hierarchies, you dumb fucks, most if them meritocratic.
The problem is inheritance, which is a completely separate thing from hierarchy. Cease reading about hobgoblin caves and read an actual textbook on the subject, faggots.

[Anonymous No.15912810]

>>15912683
You've misunderstood what I'm saying. My point is that people feel ashamed for saying that others AREN'T equal, because it puts them down. Emasculated men are pathologically afraid of hurting other people, so while they're "aware" that there are inequalities, they feel that the acknowledgement of the inequalities directly or indirectly is morally bad because it would "hurt" those who are inferior to others.
No one really believes that everyone is exactly equal, obviously, you're completely correct. But there IS a subset of people who believe that those who are inferior are too fragile to be told such, directly or indirectly, and therefore think you need to hide this fact behind politeness and back-bending until their inferiority is so obscured they come to believe they're exactly equal with everyone else. These people don't believe you should treat them the same because they're "intrinsically valuable", many of them reject the concept of divine ordination for humans and would really see you as essentially a useful idiot for believing in God. They believe you should treat people the same because they've been raised to believe that what makes someone bad is not immoral behavior but a combination of traits that are, basically, egotistical and violent vanity. In the same way that early Christians were encouraged to "flee immorality", these people flee these traits. The result is they avoid, sublimate, live in denial of, or pathologize behaviors that are centered around the self or that are violent or associated with violence.

These people are not Lockians who think everyone is different but are equally loved by God and should be treated as such. They believe people are different but think that it's mean to do anything that acknowledges said differences.

[Anonymous No.15912833]

>>15912368
The glasses needs to fit your head shape.

[Anonymous No.15912836]

>>15912223
>people always come to the decision to wear the same type of rectangular glasses
it took so much work for me to find non-rectangular glasses in america. asians are woke to rounded glasses, and anything else fashion-related

[Anonymous No.15912852]

>>15911054
Fantasy (high, scifi, pulp, surreal) is just entering Platos cave. It doesnt describe reality, so it wont teach you anything about reality. This is what makes in an inferior kind of literature.

[Anonymous No.15912870]

>>15911138
>>15912474
It doesn't make sense because they probably follow and obey social hierarchies. In fact, their very attempt to attack hierarchies is the result of an obedience to a social hierarchy which values such signalling. It's absurd.

[Anonymous No.15912878]

>>15912852
Actually scifi does as it is the only exception to the rule that there is nothing new under the sun. Plenty of predictions in these thought experiments have come true.

[Anonymous No.15912880]

>>15912759
>The problem is the hereditary part of this
I don't disagree, but that wasn't included in the criticism in the OP so I didn't address it.
>you can't just switch your argument from a utopian examination of what world should be to a completely as-is observation.
This is fair. I've structured the original comment poorly and the result is that it hasn't really reflected my point here very well. See >>15912810, it might clarify a few things. I'm still "developing" political opinions, so I'll add a disclaimer that nothing I've written is intended to "defend" or "encourage" any particular political system, it's really just an analysis of why it seems that this attitude of "Tolkein's ideas are revolting because he's a reactionary" exists. I don't know if I'd 100% agree with your way of defining the purpose and implementation of hierarchy but I'd definitely say that, yes, that is it's usual application, so I'd really just like to gloss over that. I find it uninteresting right now.

[Anonymous No.15912893]

>>15912836
Are you mentally retarded or something? My struggle was being 6'2" and having a big head and most glasses being built for manlets. Ray ban specifically makes only childrens sized glasses.

Google warby parker.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15912899]

>>15912642
>>15912654
I donno what that poster said, but anarchism is about the challenging of all unjustifiable hierarchies. Not the ditching of all hierarchies. Clearly you have them and need them. A parent to a child, a teacher to a student, an expert to a novice. People are largely trainable in most things. Why treat someone like shit for what they don’t know? That’s mindless competitiveness.

>>15912759
What books would you recommend he read to maybe show him a better way?

[Junot Diaz Official No.15912910]

>>15912899
Why don't y'all accept this justifiable hierarchy where I fart in your puta face?

*mic drop*

[Anonymous No.15912927]

>>15912870
I've hard a Jewish joke, from Zizek actually, that goes:
>It's the Sabat and all the Jews of this townare in the synagogue
>The rabbi stands up, walks to the center
>"Oh Lord, know that I am nothing before you, I am only a man!"
>The rabbi sits back down
>On of the wealthier Jews in the assembly stands up, he walks to the center
>"Oh Lord, know that I too am nothing before you, I am only a man!"
>He returns to his spot and sits back down
>Then a poor Jew, without even a penny to his name stands up
>"Oh Lord, I as well, I am nothing before you, I am only a man!"
>The rabbi and the wealthy Jew are astonished and mutter angrily to each other:
>"Who is this fool, who thinks he can just stand up and say he's nothing!?"

[Anonymous No.15912928]

>>15912878
>Actually scifi does
Oh no, most of the science just isnt real. You could write a very accurate prediction of how you think terraforming will be like or how an oneil cylinder might work, but its still speculation and not based on reality.

Thats the less fantastic hard scifi, dont mention most other scifi which is literally undermining peoples understanding of science, by introducing fake science that has no bearing on reality.

[Anonymous No.15912950]

>>15911138
they just want to have street cred

[Anonymous No.15912963]

>>15912928
I don't think you understand the fundemental basis of scifi. The fundemental basis of scifi and what seperates it from fantasy or horror is that it is about humanity confronting inhumanity. Aliens or techology or cold space, all uncaring and unmoved by us. It is incredibly detached from fantasy and horror because of this.

[Anonymous No.15913011]

>>15912963
I dont see your opinion undermines my argument. In fact, had you said that the purpose of scifi is to explore what could be scientifically possible, then I would gave admitted that hard scifi is somewhat seperate, but if scifi is the exploration of the not human, then its just as vaque and meaningless as fantasy and horror.

[Anonymous No.15913013]

I am a cod-Wagnerian wen-oeuver boil-lance pompositifier too.

[Anonymous No.15913022]

>>15912244
>What the fuck, no. Go to the lit departement of any top university, no one likes him. He is only considered "literary" by shallow consumerists who couldn't perceive literary depth if it was staring them right in the face.

I have met a few professors in my time that took Tolkien very seriously. He's more respected than you think.

[Anonymous No.15913030]

>>15912927
That's also why Pope washing feet or king operating the plough is meaningful, but you doing that will be both humiliating and pretentious.

[Anonymous No.15913033]

>>15913011
Fantasy and horror both explore our internalities. Especially horror. I think the flaw in your thesis is that you believe that narrative has any obligation to describe external reality.

[Anonymous No.15913038]

>>15913011
>then its just as vaque and meaningless as fantasy and horror.

Yeah so I guess the fucking Odyssey is vague and meaningless too, since it has literal pagan gods and spirits and a trip to the literal underworld, right?

The 20th Century absolutely ruined Western literature, Jesus fucking Christ. "Vague and meaningless." Faggot.

[Anonymous No.15913045]

Surely everyone now uses elves in a same way Tolkien did.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15913083]

>>15913045
Naw, only these types >>15913013 use the same cliches

...oh, I can’t use this picture

[Anonymous No.15913117]

>>15913045
I like fat elves. yes I am talking about THAT manga.

[Anonymous No.15913200]

>>15912880
Thanks for clarifying, I think we are mostly in agreement

>>15912899
>What books would you recommend he read to maybe show him a better way?
1. Frontier, Can Xue
2. Collected works of Edgar Allan Poe
3. To the Lighthouse, Virginia Woolf
4. The Rise of the Novel, Ian Watt
5. The Art of the Novel, Milan Kundera

>People are largely trainable in most things
Even ignoring the utopian nature of providing everyone with a satisfactory education, you are underestimating the influence genetics play at a person not being a complete retard unworthy of respect.

>>15913022
I am studying in England, where Tolkien should be respected most and besides East Anglia meme (the fuckers take Stephen King seriously) and a few isolated cases it is mostly only the low ranking unies that take him seriously. You will rarely see him mentioned at all in top unies, ironically even at Oxford. I mean, my experience is limited, sure, but if you look at the scholarship being written on Tolkien it is mostly very wacky and not serious at all.

[Anonymous No.15913218]

>>15911397
>Isn't Tolkien one of the few accepted fantasy writers that is considered "literary?"
By who? The few Tolkien fanboys on this shit board? Tolkien isn't even academically considered. There is nothing worth analysis.

[Anonymous No.15913237]

>>15912355
>>shitting on /sffg/
>not shitting on /sffg/

[Anonymous No.15913238]

>>15913033
No, I see novels as psychological, but these have to be based in reality, otherwise you are entering an illusion and you go mad, like star wars fanboys.

[Anonymous No.15913249]

>>15913038
Homer semi-accurately reflects the society and worldview of the ancient greeks. Scifi has no basis in any real society.

[Anonymous No.15913268]

>>15913200
>>15913218
I find this very ironic given what one professor once told me about Tolkien.

She thought it was very ironic that The Lord Of The Rings was voted as the "best novel of the 20th Century" by a poll of Britons. Because, as she put it, it's not really a novel when you think about it. It's a romance. It doesn't do the things that novels do, it's more akin to the tales of King Arthur from the Middle Ages, or something like Beowulf. It's a heroic romance story, albeit one with Catholic sensibilities. Tolkien himself put out a translation of Beowulf so he was drawing directly on that sort of thing for LOTR. So it's not really a novel since it's not psychological, as >>15913238 says.

But this professor also said that she thought The Lord Of The Rings was one of the few works of literature that would survive the 20th Century. That most of what was written in the 20th Century wasn't "big enough" to be read for a long time after, not in the way, say, Homer or Virgil or Dante or Milton or Tolstoy are. And it was precisely that "big" quality, that kind of vastness, that she thought would make The Lord Of The Rings survive for ages to come.

I honestly think she's right. I think people will be reading LOTR a thousand years from now.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15913294]

>>15913200
>Even ignoring the utopian nature of providing everyone with a satisfactory education, you are underestimating the influence genetics play at a person not being a complete retard unworthy of respect.
Naw. Not only are we perfectly capable of providing everyone alive today with “higher” education, proper healthcare and maintenance, but an abundance of things to do, challenges to meet. Their genetics, deformities etc. are a part of those challenges. And there’s people who love to care about them, research ways to aid or eliminate such hurdles.
“Retards” are worthy of some respect. Wing-pullers, rat torturers, the types that kick “retards” for looking funny, are worthy of a cure for ails their Troubled heads too.

[Anonymous No.15913305]

>>15913268
I agree that lotr will be read for a thousand years. It belongs to the same level as the koine novels which is mythology for the plebs.

And yes, the novel has to be grounded in reality and has to have a focus on the inner life of its characters.

Scifi can not achieve this very well.

[Anonymous No.15913363]

>>15913033
>Fantasy and horror both explore our internalities. Especially horror.
Hahaha "OH MY GOD A BIG BAD MONSTER UGHHHH I'M SHITTING MY PANTS SO FUCKING SCARY" Hahahaha manchild Hahahaha.

[Anonymous No.15913383]

>>15913249
>>15913363
Even the schlockiest of pulp genres tells us something about the people who write it and the people who read it. There's no such thing as utterly meaningless fiction.

Also I genuinely think you're discounting the literary value of horror. What about Frankenstein, or Dracula? Or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?

[Anonymous No.15913391]

>>15913383
>What about Frankenstein
Mediocre
>or Dracula? Or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde?
Disgustingly vapid.

[Anonymous No.15913442]

>>15913238
Star wars is based on the monomyth anon.

[Anonymous No.15913466]

>>15913383
The Dr. Frankenstein parts are the worst parts of Frankenstein. The “horror” comes from him being a limpwristed fag who can’t stop bitching.

[Anonymous No.15913482]

>>15913268
This doesn't say anything about the literary quality of Lord of the Rings, though I do agree it will be read a thousand years from now in the same way Dracula will.

[Anonymous No.15913496]

>>15913442
So does fucking Harry Potter.

[Anonymous No.15913511]

Lord of the Rings? I preferred it when it was called Der Ring des Nibelungen!

[Anonymous No.15913526]

>>15911054
>some bald, pozzed faggot who can't write a sentence to save his life is butthurt over alleged wrongs
fuck off

[Anonymous No.15913530]

>>15913200
>I mean, my experience is limited, sure, but if you look at the scholarship being written on Tolkien it is mostly very wacky and not serious at all
Even Harold Bloom published this, so I think you're kind of blind to the fact there's serious scholars who write about him. Albeit there is an essay in here about Scandinavian or Northern Masculinities.

[Anonymous No.15913539]

>>15911054
Fantasy authors always have the most stale hot takes on Tolkien.

[Anonymous No.15913557]

>>15913530
It's pretty obvious that anon is speaking Tolkien's reputation as an author rather than a academic.

[Anonymous No.15913565]

>>15913482
If you think it's going to last that means you're acknowledging its literary quality, since only the great works of literature, the works that remain in the depths of the human condition, actually last.

Samuel Johnson writes in the preface to his edition of Shakespeare's plays that, in the year 1765 when the edition came out, Shakespeare had been dead for more than 150 years. Everyone who had ever known him was dead, and also dead was everyone who could have gotten some monetary value, some personal benefit, to having his plays performed. Yet his plays were still being performed. Johnson says that, therefore, there must be something of value to Shakespeare, something of genuine power in Shakespeare, that has transcended his own time and makes him relevant in ages beyond his own, and the way we judge this is the fact that he is still beloved, and still popular, long after his own time has passed.

According to Johnson, popular judgment over time is the only way to truly tell whether a work is great or not. Why have the great writers of the 20th Century survived? Why have Joyce and Faulkner and Proust survived? Because people have judged, over time, that they deserve to survive--and not just academics, but common, everyday readers, or at least those readers who are genuinely literate.

So if The Lord Of The Rings is more than 65 years old at this point, and it is still being widely read and discussed, wouldn't that indicate that it will probably wind up in the Canon? And therefore that it IS a work of literary value?

[Anonymous No.15913575]

>>15913557
>if you look at the scholarship being written on Tolkien it is mostly very wacky and not serious at all
Literally read what he said.

[Anonymous No.15913595]

>>15913363
Protip: the monster or ghosts are projections of psychological fears

[Anonymous No.15913600]

>>15911138
You are a wannabe slave boy. That's some sick shit.

[Anonymous No.15913604]

>>15913383
Frankenstein is scifi

[Anonymous No.15913614]

>>15913496
Correct, and?

[Anonymous No.15913828]

>>15913565
I believe Lord of the Rings will continue to be read in the same exact sense Stephen King will continue to be read long after his death, because they dug themselves into a niche in genre. This isn't necessarily a testament to their greatness

[Anonymous No.15913892]

>>15912708
>right wingers in 2010: haha all these butthurt libs just use their feelings and not data
>right wingers in 2020: haha these libs and their data. They should just trust their feelings like I do.
Can't win with some people

[Anonymous No.15914229]

>>15912474
>Hierarchies imply that some people are worse at something than others.
Complete nonsense. Hierarchies only require that some people have more power than others. Some hierarchies are legitimate, other are not. The goal of the left is to take down illegitimate hierarchies.

>Emasculated or oversocialized men feel intense and deep shame when they acknowledge, out loud or internally, that someone is less skilled than another because in an industrialized materialist economy where people have been socialized to identify skill with value, your lack of ability means you must be a morally worse person.
Woah, look at the nuclear level projection going on here. Power has nothing to do with "skill", you naive little faggot.

>When the differential in ability is incredibly obvious, they mask this with fake-humble platitudes like "Everyone is good at something" or "Yeah Joe is better at A,B,...,Y but James is better at Z". Rather than say "Yeah Joe is better at most things than James, so what? I still like them both.", they gloss over the differences in ability to preserve the semblance of equality.
Differences in ability have nothing to do with the hierarchy of power. You sound like an Amerilard who has internalized capitalist propaganda.

>Therefore, when Tolkein almost outright says "It's better to have a king, who is superior in all abilities, guide men and provide them council and security"
Kings are not "superior in all abilities", jackass. Usually they are inbred mouthbreathing simpletons.

>this is horrifying not because it's "wrong" to argue against democracy (weak men don't actually care about democracy), it's wrong because it implies that there's one man who's better than all other men.
Kingship is hereditary. They are not chosen based on ability.

>>15912642
>>15912870
>It doesn't make sense because they probably follow and obey social hierarchies.
Leftists do not oppose hierarchy, mongoloid. Hierarchy is a part of human nature. The idea that people differ in their abilities and experience is both obvious and obviously irrelevant to power relations. Illegitimate hierarchies are not justified by skill or any other sound basis. And the mere existence of a social ranking does not justify concentrating all power at the top.

[Anonymous No.15914271]

>>15913595
False. Fear is a spook.

[Anonymous No.15914288]

>>15913828
Don't compare each other.

[Anonymous No.15914300]

>>15913828
This. Lord of the Rings is genre fiction, not literature.

[Anonymous No.15914429]

>>15914229
lol

[Anonymous No.15914508]

>>15914300
'It's genre fiction, not literature' is the fat-bodied book dweeb's equivalent to 'it's a flick, not cinema.'
I have read 'literature' immensely shittier than genre fiction.

[Anonymous No.15914521]

>>15914271
My fist pummeling your face into a loose pile of ropy, detached tendon and floating bone is a spook too.

[Anonymous No.15914529]

>>15914508
>immensely shittier
It's not a contest.

[Anonymous No.15914572]

>>15911054
I stopped reading at the middle of the second paragraph. All his points are nothing more than whining about Tolkien's views, which he personally doesn't like.

One thing I'd like to point out is this:
>His boys-own-adventure glorying at war

Tolkien was a WW1 veteran who fought at the Battle of Somme. He knew about war far more than this bald mystery meat.

I don't know who this literal who is, but he's clearly some ignorant hack who is merely using books to push his political agenda and ideology.

[Anonymous No.15914573]

>>15914229
Imagine calling me ignorant when you still operate on the ultra-pseud paradigm of "What people say they intend to do must be what they're going to do."
The fact that leftists say they want to dismantle illegitimate hierarchies is irrelevant. Their classification of legitimate and illegitimate hierarchies is always going to be colored by their belief that it's morally wrong to be "mean", whatever that means
>projection
How? This is literally how they conduct discourse. They call anyone who they don't like "a bully" on account of this nonsensical hatred for """"mean""""ness. The implementation of hierarchies in reality has no bearing on a conceptual opposition to hierarchies, which is exactly what the OP is referring to. Why else would he call Tolkien's embrace of hierarchical ordering "revolting" and not "naive"? Surely if his opinion was that hierarchies were an interesting concept but problematic because they're not implemented well, someone who embraced them would seem ignorant or stupid, not evil and malignant.
>Kings are not "superior in all abilities", jackass. Usually they are inbred mouthbreathing simpletons.
Irrelevant. Tolkien's argument is that they are. OP's pic related isn't attacking illegitimate hierarchies, it's attacking the concept of hierarchies.
>Leftists do not oppose hierarchy, mongoloid.
Then why does OP call "reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos" revolting if not his opposition to hierarchy. If his opposition was to a specific hierarchy, he would have specified, for example, "hierarchical western society", not the very concept of "hierarchical status-quos"

I'm utterly astonished by your going to such lengths to effort post despite clearly having no idea what the conversation in this thread is even about.

[Anonymous No.15914602]

>>15914573
>morally wrong to be "mean"
It's not about your feefees, fagboy. It's about material power structures, specifically capitalism.

[Anonymous No.15914613]

>>15914573
>Then why does OP call "reactionary love for hierarchical status-quos" revolting if not his opposition to hierarchy.
Because the hierarchical status-quo is obviously illegitimate. Look around, retard.